This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

If they are completely privately owned and take no public funds, then yes, they have a right to limit who enters their property, who can say what, and who can say it where. If they take one single penny of public funds, the 1st amendment rules.

Free speech zones anywhere on public property violates the 1st amendment.... I can see the need for a permit to hold a rally, protest, etc. but the permit has to be free, and it has to be issued immediately, or it violates our rights under the Constitution.

BTW....... It's our right to "freedom of speech", not "free speech".

BTW 2.…. The first amendment only restricts Congress from passing laws that restrict Freedom of speech….. It says nothing about the States.

Thats what you call "your opinion". Apparently "your opinion" and Texas law differs.

I think there policy also restricts handing out fliers.
It has to be done in the "free speech zone" and people have to ask for them.

That was the old policy, I believe they eventually changed it.

The problem I have is that as long as you aren't interrupting classes and movement of teachers/students, you should be able to stand anywhere, handing out fliers to anyone.

It is an institution that is state and federally funded, they must abide by the Constitution.

It might have had something to do with the fact they were walking up to people leaving a speaking event and in their faces with posters, cameras, and a bullhorn. There is a 10 minute long version of the video that shows the event for much more of what it actually was.

I think there policy also restricts handing out fliers.
It has to be done in the "free speech zone" and people have to ask for them.

That was the old policy, I believe they eventually changed it.

The problem I have is that as long as you aren't interrupting classes and movement of teachers/students, you should be able to stand anywhere, handing out fliers to anyone.

It is an institution that is state and federally funded, they must abide by the Constitution.

nope
assume i wanted to assert my right to freely practice my religion and to engage in free speech in order to proselytize those on campus. say i wanted to win the students over to become islamic extremists. the university - as property owner/administrator - has the right to limit my activities, even tho those activities would be my attempts to express freedom of speech and religion and association ... my rights do not offset those rights of the property owner/administrator

let me note that as an institution of higher learning, it is disappointing that the university officials would so limit the exercise of its students, squelching dissent or views contrary to those espoused by the administration

we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it​[

... Maybe you shouldn’t be in the country. You have to stand proudly for the national anthem ... ~ tRump

nope
assume i wanted to assert my right to freely practice my religion and to engage in free speech in order to proselytize those on campus. say i wanted to win the students over to become islamic extremists. the university - as property owner/administrator - has the right to limit my activities, even tho those activities would be my attempts to express freedom of speech and religion and association ... my rights do not offset those rights of the property owner/administrator

let me note that as an institution of higher learning, it is disappointing that the university officials would so limit the exercise of its students, squelching dissent or views contrary to those espoused by the administration

I can see them limiting solicitation by handing out flier and such but I can't see a university actually winning out if they were sued for telling students they topics they could and could not discuss with each other.

SO I should have the right to come to your house...unannounced, and stand there with a bullhorn and say whatever I want...on your lawn...for a s long as I want, to whoever I want?

Well actually, if you were on his lawn you'd be on private property and he could probably shoot you. If you were on the public side walk that would be a different story, though I think police could remove you for public disturbance if you were in a residential area.

Originally Posted by VanceMack

Reiterate...he was not a student of the UT. He IS a professional agitator. they were on the UT grounds protesting on a day when they knew they would have lots of people there. He refused to move 100 yards to public property. It wasnt about any 'free speech zones'. Start with that.

It doesn't matter what he is. As long as tax dollars are partially funding the school, it falls under the protection of the Constitution and anyone can go on campus as long as they are not threatening the safety of the people there.

I can see them limiting solicitation by handing out flier and such but I can't see a university actually winning out if they were sued for telling students they topics they could and could not discuss with each other.

they cannot prevent students from conversing about whatever they chose to. that would be unenforceable
however, they can - and as we have seen, will - prohibit campus activities they find against the interests of the university

we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it​[

... Maybe you shouldn’t be in the country. You have to stand proudly for the national anthem ... ~ tRump

nope
assume i wanted to assert my right to freely practice my religion and to engage in free speech in order to proselytize those on campus. say i wanted to win the students over to become islamic extremists. the university - as property owner/administrator - has the right to limit my activities, even tho those activities would be my attempts to express freedom of speech and religion and association ... my rights do not offset those rights of the property owner/administrator

let me note that as an institution of higher learning, it is disappointing that the university officials would so limit the exercise of its students, squelching dissent or views contrary to those espoused by the administration

If the state is the property owner, the rights reside with the students first.

I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
—Adam Shepard

Well actually, if you were on his lawn you'd be on private property and he could probably shoot you. If you were on the public side walk that would be a different story, though I think police could remove you for public disturbance if you were in a residential area.

It doesn't matter what he is. As long as tax dollars are partially funding the school, it falls under the protection of the Constitution and anyone can go on campus as long as they are not threatening the safety of the people there.

You are again expressing your opinion as it pertains to this case and obviously not Texas Law. The board requested the police remove him.They did. Obviously you dont understand Texas law and private property as it relates to Universities NEAR as much as you think you do. And even on a public street he would need to have a permit to assemble.

If the state is the property owner, the rights reside with the students first.

that it is state owned gives no right to the citizen to exercise its rights thereon as if it were their own property for their own use
the government will administer it as the state sees fit

now if you insist that i am wrong, i want you to test your theory when the closest public elementary school soon opens for the school year, and go personally pass out literature that would be inappropriate for school children even tho it would not be inappropriate for adult citizens
when we quit seeing your posts, we will all find out your theory was found wrong

we are negotiating about dividing a pizza and in the meantime israel is eating it​[

... Maybe you shouldn’t be in the country. You have to stand proudly for the national anthem ... ~ tRump

As usual, there is more to the story then the edited version they want you to see on UTube.

Doood was arrested because he was NOT a student of UT and was protesting on campus. The school board of trustees representative and the police both asked him 3 times politely to take their protest 100 yards to MLK blvd on public land and then by all means carry on. This was far from just a bunch of students having a discussion (see the link attached). http://www.blip.tv/file/3998011\ John Bush is a professional political agitator. And he did what he do...he agitated. So...he got removed.

Think about this logically and not emotionally for a second. Can you walk onto any public school property and start protesting freely without getting arrested? Of course not. And even on public lands when you have a planned assembly you have to file for permits.

As a libertarian I find his actions repugnant. And BTW...read a little about doood...and watch some of his videos. He's a shameless self-promoting asshole.

He lied about his press credentials. He lied about his intent. And when asked to leave...politely...3 times...he was finally arrested and removed. Yay.

It was a PUBLIC university. It was PUBLIC property. Therefore he had every right to be there. If this had occurred at a PRIVATE university on PRIVATE property, then sure I would have no problem. If people want to protest at a public high school, middle school etc., then go for it. Who's old enough to care or listen besides the 100 faculty?

Originally Posted by justabubba

his right to free speech does not trump the property owner's right to determine what activities do or do not occur on its property

which is why he was arrested for trespassing

he possesses the right of free speech
he possesses the right to assemble
but not if the property owner where he plans to present his speech or create an assembly says otherwise